So have your fun with Miller and his legal points. The reality is you would disenfranchise both Miller and Murkowski voters because you think they have low iq's and thus should not be given the same legal standing as people you deem to have higher iq's using oh so wonderful sources like "Yahoo Answers".

Disenfranchising them because they're mentally ill, suffering from "psychosis", on the other hand, is perfectly OK.

In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale. That was the year Gore's classmates remember him spending a notable amount of time in the Dunster House basement lounge shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers and occasionally smoking marijuana. His grades temporarily reflected his mildly experimental mood, and alarmed his parents. He received one D, one C-minus, two C's, two C-pluses and one B-minus, an effort that placed him in the lower fifth of the class for the second year in a row.

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.

In the midst of all this I should note that Sen. Bill Bradley, certainly not someone I think you would knock as a dummy, had a documented IQ of 103 and a very low SAT verbal score of 485. He was a Princeton Rhodes Scholar as well regardless of those two items.

As for President Obama, we know he went to Occidental College for two years, transferred to Columbia and graduated with his undergrad degree. He was then admitted to Harvard Law and completed his graduate work there. He graduated from Columbia WITHOUT honors which would mean his GPA was lower than 3.3. He did graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. This is all we know because he has not released anything more.

We know Sarah Palin transferred around quite a bit and graduated with her degree in Communications from the University of Idaho. She graduated in 1987, got married in 1988, and had her first child in 1989 while helping her husband with his business. If any of these things makes someone stupid make sure to let us know because it sounds like a ton of women I know and respect.

They are usually able to function day to day without assistance, including holding down a simple job and the basic responsibilities of maintaining a dwelling.

Regardless of who we are talking about, all these parties have done well above that.

Finally with regard to disenfranchisement, it should be noted that classic Democratic tactics of voter disenfranchisement involve education, character and money. All have been used by them in the past in the form of poll taxes, literacy or education tests, and grandfather/good character clauses to deny votes or viewpoints from those with whom they disagree.

You're not entitled to your own facts. There are plenty of them here waiting for you to yet again dismiss them with your silly nonsense.

Dude, that is not how it works around here. I make a claim and you have to disprove it. Especially if a couple of my friends laugh and go along.

[soapbox]Actually happens on both sides, but HS and Jimmac do this as a way of operating and others usually do it to annoy them and reflect a style back at them. Drops the conversation level at times when all are posting at the same level. There are those that have admitted they do this outright, and that they are fine with it, while at the same time complaining about it. Sigh...[/soapbox]

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale. That was the year Gore's classmates remember him spending a notable amount of time in the Dunster House basement lounge shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers and occasionally smoking marijuana. His grades temporarily reflected his mildly experimental mood, and alarmed his parents. He received one D, one C-minus, two C's, two C-pluses and one B-minus, an effort that placed him in the lower fifth of the class for the second year in a row.

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.

In the midst of all this I should note that Sen. Bill Bradley, certainly not someone I think you would knock as a dummy, had a documented IQ of 103 and a very low SAT verbal score of 485. He was a Princeton Rhodes Scholar as well regardless of those two items.

As for President Obama, we know he went to Occidental College for two years, transferred to Columbia and graduated with his undergrad degree. He was then admitted to Harvard Law and completed his graduate work there. He graduated from Columbia WITHOUT honors which would mean his GPA was lower than 3.3. He did graduate Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law. This is all we know because he has not released anything more.

We know Sarah Palin transferred around quite a bit and graduated with her degree in Communications from the University of Idaho. She graduated in 1987, got married in 1988, and had her first child in 1989 while helping her husband with his business. If any of these things makes someone stupid make sure to let us know because it sounds like a ton of women I know and respect.

They are usually able to function day to day without assistance, including holding down a simple job and the basic responsibilities of maintaining a dwelling.

Regardless of who we are talking about, all these parties have done well above that.

Finally with regard to disenfranchisement, it should be noted that classic Democratic tactics of voter disenfranchisement involve education, character and money. All have been used by them in the past in the form of poll taxes, literacy or education tests, and grandfather/good character clauses to deny votes or viewpoints from those with whom they disagree.

You're not entitled to your own facts. There are plenty of them here waiting for you to yet again dismiss them with your silly nonsense.

Typical obfuscation.
Not only was this long winded but it didn't directly answer the question at all.
I guess you're incapable of doing that.

Quote:

Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.

Why is it such a mystery that many believe that number given his actions? But too much coke and achohol will do that. Also this doesn't say anythijng about Palin or Obama.

Quote:

Persons who fall into this categorization have a relatively normal expression of affect for their age, though their ability to think abstractly is rather limited. Reasoning displays a preference for concrete thinking. Others may describe such a person as "simple" or "a little slow". They are usually able to function day to day without assistance, including holding down a simple job and the basic responsibilities of maintaining a dwelling.

Should that job they're holding down be president of the United States?

You're reaching here. In the end I asked MJ if he had proof that those nuimbers were false? You answered for him and didn't really provide that proof.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

My post was to drum up some replies and was intended to be funny, not serious, which I think MJ1970 got. The thread was dead. 3rd time lucky though! I figured righties couldn't just sit idly by whilst their government heroes looked so inferior to Obama.

Thanks for posting your Bush IQ and other prez's scores. 91 seems about right for him and actually isn't much higher than my mate at Yahoo answers. I wish they'd do one for Palin...eek maybe they will someday! My guess is she'd score a little higher than Bush. Maybe a whisker under 100.

SDW made some good points earlier. I hope to do some reading up on some his points and I certainly don't think IQ is or should be the primary judgement on who is elected prez, though Bush clearly had issues that the IQ score is in some ways reflective of.

I found the speakers talk diabolical in many ways. The assumptions made were frightening on a number of issues, including how lower IQ people would live in shanty town type environments because of their lower IQ. Just awfull! Also the guy who talked about ridding the US of low IQ people instead of focusing on blacks. Scary people.

Can someone show that Bush's IQ is 91?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Well it's not. Someone makes a statement and someone infers that it's not true. So it's their responsibility to find the facts that disprove it.

The other is answering a question with a question or trying to put the burden of proof on the other party when originally it was them who questioned the facts in the first place. So not the same thing. If someone wants to challenge they have to have the facts to do it with. Otherwise the challenge is meaningless with no real substance other than personal opinion. The same could be said for a statement with no backing but it's still the challenger's responsibility to counter it with facts.

Personally I don't know what the truth is about these individuals and their I.Q. However like I've said in Bush's case it would have helped if he hadn't acted like his I.Q. was only 91.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Well it's not. Someone makes a statement and someone infers that it's not true. So it's their responsibility to find the facts that disprove it.

Wrong. You missed a step sunshine. Someone makes a claim with no factual support and then expects others to proves it is wrong. The burden on proof is one them. You are engaging in the argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) fallacy. In this fallacy:

Quote:

It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

The other is answering a question with a question or trying to put the burden of proof on the other party when originally it was them who questioned the facts in the first place.

Your mistake here is that there weren't any facts to question. It was a claimunsupported by any facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

So not the same thing. If someone wants to challenge they have to have the facts to do it with. Otherwise the challenge is meaningless with no real substance other than personal opinion.

Let's try this another way and see if you can recognize the ridiculousness of what you're saying. I'll make sure all the parties play the same parts:

1. Hands Sandon claims that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time. He posts a website that supports this claim. A website in which unverifiable, anonymous individuals can post any claims or "facts" without the need to prove them.

2. MJ1970 laughs at the obvious ridiculousness of this and the fact that Hands Sandon is using a website in which unverifiable, anonymous individuals can post any claims or "facts" without the need to prove them as support for his claim.

3. MJ1970 asks is he has any real facts to support his claim that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time.

4. jimmac jumps into the middle and begins to engage in an argument from ignorance fallacy by asking if MJ1970 has any facts that disprove this claim that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time.

5. MJ1970 responds by saying there haven't been any facts presented to support this claim in the first place.

6. jimmac continues to engage in an argument from ignorance fallacy by continuing to defend the possibility and even probability that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time because MJ1970 hasn't provided any facts to counter this claim.

Wrong. You missed a step sunshine. Someone makes a claim with no factual support and then expects others to proves it is wrong. The burden on proof is one them. You are engaging in the argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) fallacy. In this fallacy:

Your mistake here is that there weren't any facts to question. It was a claimunsupported by any facts.

Let's try this another way and see if you can recognize the ridiculousness of what you're saying. I'll make sure all the parties play the same parts:

1. Hands Sandon claims that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time. He posts a website that supports this claim. A website in which unverifiable, anonymous individuals can post any claims or "facts" without the need to prove them.

2. MJ1970 laughs at the obvious ridiculousness of this and the fact that Hands Sandon is using a website in which unverifiable, anonymous individuals can post any claims or "facts" without the need to prove them as support for his claim.

3. MJ1970 asks is he has any real facts to support his claim that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time.

4. jimmac jumps into the middle and begins to engage in an argument from ignorance fallacy by asking if MJ1970 has any facts that disprove this claim that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time.

5. MJ1970 responds by saying there haven't been any facts presented to support this claim in the first place.

6. jimmac continues to engage in an argument from ignorance fallacy by continuing to defend the possibility and even probability that Barack Obama likes to torture small animals in his spare time because MJ1970 hasn't provided any facts to counter this claim.

You'd be right except for one tiny item ( Sunshine ). Someone stepped up to the plate not armed with facts to challenge it. That puts the burden on them. Someone makes a statement armed with what they assume is facts. So anyone challenging that should do the same and not just say " That's unsupported ". They have to show why not. Not just that they don't believe a website. That argument has been an easy reply ( even used by myself ) here for too long.

I suppose they could have said : " Do you have facts from another more recognized source " instead of immediately dismissing it. One's as bad as the other. Get it?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

And try not to do it with a self servicing ( make MJ look superior type ) insult.

Self-serving or not, insulting or not it was a simple observation with a diagnosis of the only two reasonable possibilities: lack of reading or of reading comprehension on your part. If you find this insulting so be it then fix the problem: either read or learn to comprehend.

Self-serving or not, insulting or not it was a simple observation with a diagnosis of the only two reasonable possibilities: lack of reading or of reading comprehension on your part. If you find this insulting so be it then fix the problem: either read or learn to comprehend.

Jimmac, this post is entirely ad hominem, and you should think about reporting him.

Self-serving or not, insulting or not it was a simple observation with a diagnosis of the only two reasonable possibilities: lack of reading or of reading comprehension on your part. If you find this insulting so be it then fix the problem: either read or learn to comprehend.

MJ,

Anyone would find your attitude offensive and abrasive from the get go. That's what I've read in our exchanges. To insult just because I don't see it your way is petty. I was trying to reason with you and reply contained not only your point of view but an unnecessary insult as well. And now you're trying to justify it. Your replies are always that way laced with things like " Sweetie " and " Sunshine ".

And you don't give a damn :

Quote:

Self-serving or not,

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Anyone would find your attitude offensive and abrasive from the get go.

Thanks for your opinion about what "anyone" would find.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

To insult just because I don't see it your way is petty.

If you find the observation I have made about your response insulting, then so be it. It was an observation based on the content of your post which clearly did not actually deal with what I wrote but, instead, dealt with your imagination of what I wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

I was trying to reason with you

You may have been trying, but doing a very poor job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

and reply contained not only your point of view but an unnecessary insult as well.

It is, of course, your choice to view it as an insult or as a valid and reasonable critique of the content of your post and use it as a opportunity to improve your replies. Your call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

And you don't give a damn :

This is an example of what I mean. Your assumption that my statement of "self-serving or not" implies that I don't give a damn is a comprehension issue. That statement was merely setting aside your conjecture about whether the "insult" you claim I've made to be self-serving or not.

It was a hoax. It's telling though that people aren't surprised when presented with 91. I dare says he'd score higher. As a matter of fact I've had numerous friends over the years say Bush is unintelligent or whatever and I've always argued the opposite. I think he doesn't care that much to be informed, much like Palin and that makes him appear stupid.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

If you find the observation I have made about your response insulting, then so be it. It was an observation based on the content of your post which clearly did not actually deal with what I wrote but, instead, dealt with your imagination of what I wrote.

You may have been trying, but doing a very poor job.

It is, of course, your choice to view it as an insult or as a valid and reasonable critique of the content of your post and use it as a opportunity to improve your replies. Your call.

This doesn't help your case as it's just trying to modify your apparent intent. However as you can see I'm not the only one who sees it my way.

Are you only here for flame bait? Or are you really that unaware as to how you sound to others online?

Your call.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I wouldn't think so. I don't address people as " Sweetie " or " Sunshine " all of the time.

Just because they have a different opinion I don't assume they have poor reading skills, imply they're stupid or have no right to an opinion because they make spelling mistakes, or that they're lesser in some way.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

What people aren't surprised by this? Perhaps people of low IQs themselves?

No, when these figures were presented lots of extremely bright intellectuals and high ranking journalists from numerous countries thought these numbers genuine. Just imagine if Bush had been high on the list, nobody would have fallen for it.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I don't address people as " Sweetie " or " Sunshine " all of the time.

Nor do I.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Just because they have a different opinion I don't assume they have poor reading skills, imply they're stupid or have no right to an opinion because they make spelling mistakes, or that they're lesser in some way.

And I have done none of that. I have not accused you of having poor reading skills (or not reading...that was the other option I offered) because your opinion differs from mine. That's faulty logic on your part. What I said was that the contents of your reply strongly suggested that you did not read or comprehend what I had written.

Nor have I told anyone they don't have a right to an opinion (for spelling errors or any other reason.)

No, when these figures were presented lots of extremely bright intellectuals and high ranking journalists from numerous countries thought these numbers genuine. Just imagine if Bush had been high on the list, nobody would have fallen for it.

Besides he claims to not be a fan of Bush himself but when it comes down to it he sounds like any other Republican who favored Bush.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

No, when these figures were presented lots of extremely bright intellectuals and high ranking journalists from numerous countries thought these numbers genuine.

Perhaps these people aren't as bright (or are strongly biased) as you think. For someone to seriously think that a president of the United States (and former state Governor) is borderline mentally retarded certainly brings into question their own judgement and reasoning skills. In fact this appears to be exactly what jimmac seems to be implying that I have done which is to claim someone is stupid simply because they disagree with their opinions and policies.

And I have done none of that. I have not accused you of having poor reading skills (or not reading...that was the other option I offered) because your opinion differs from mine. That's faulty logic on your part. What I said was that the contents of your reply strongly suggested that you did not read or comprehend what I had written.

Nor have I told anyone they don't have a right to an opinion (for spelling errors or any other reason.)

Quote:

Nor do I.

Too bad there isn't a function on this board to show how many times you've used them.

Quote:

I have not accused you of having poor reading skills (or not reading...that was the other option I offered) because your opinion differs from mine. That's faulty logic on your part. What I said was that the contents of your reply strongly suggested that you did not read or comprehend what I had written.

There's this :

Quote:

Because all evidence appears to point to either not reading or having a serious reading comprehension problem.

And this :

Quote:

Self-serving or not, insulting or not it was a simple observation with a diagnosis of the only two reasonable possibilities: lack of reading or of reading comprehension on your part. If you find this insulting so be it then fix the problem: either read or learn to comprehend.

Which basically is an admission guilt. Or did I not read that correctly?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Too bad there isn't a function on this board to show how many times you've used them.

Well all I have to do is show at least one time where I haven't to disprove your implication that I do it all the time. I don't do it all the time. Mostly with you. Sometimes with Mumbo Jumbo or Wormhole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

There's this :

Yes. That statement was a characterization of the content of your reply which clearly suggested one of those two possibilities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Which basically is an admission guilt. Or did I not read that correctly?

No it is not. You did not read that correctly. I wasn't admitting it was self-serving at all. Read the statement very carefully and maybe you'll see that.

Well all I have to do is show at least one time where I haven't to disprove your implication that I do it all the time. I don't do it all the time. Mostly with you. Sometimes with Mumbo Jumbo or Wormhole.

Yes. That statement was a characterization of the content of your reply which clearly suggested one of those two possibilities.

With your admission I saw only one possibility as it was a qualifier.

Quote:

I don't do it all the time

So only most of the time. And why do it at all?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Well all I have to do is show at least one time where I haven't to disprove your implication that I do it all the time. I don't do it all the time. Mostly with you. Sometimes with Mumbo Jumbo or Wormhole.

Yes. That statement was a characterization of the content of your reply which clearly suggested one of those two possibilities.

No it is not. You did not read that correctly. I wasn't admitting it was self-serving at all. Read the statement very carefully and maybe you'll see that.

Quote:

Self-serving or not, insulting or not

Oh I see! So you just didn't care.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination